Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2086 OF 2014

State of Kerala and Others

Appellants

Versus
S. Unnikrishnan Nair and Others

Respondents

JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
The seminal question that emerges for consideration in
this appeal is whether the High Court of Kerala at
Ernakulam, is justified in quashing the F.I.R. lodged against
the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections
182, 194, 195, 195A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure by the impugned order dated 14 th

December, 2012.
2.

At the outset, we must state that Mr. L. Nageshwar

Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the State has

submitted that there is no grievance as far as the
quashment of the offences punishable under Sections 182,
194, 195, 195A I.P.C. is concerned. Therefore, the central
challenge pertains to quashing of the offence punishable
under Section 306 I.P.C.
3.

The facts in detail need not be stated, for the

controversy really lies in a narrow compass. As the factual

matrix would unfurl, one Sampath was alleged to have been
beaten to death by the investigating agency, that is, the
State police, while he was in custody. His brother,
Murukeshan, preferred W.P.(C) No.13426 of 2010 and
during the pendency of the writ petition, he filed I.A.
No.16944 of 2010. His prayer was basically for issuance of
a direction to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
(C.B.I.)

to

submit

detailed

report

regarding

the

investigation so far conducted and production of the entire

case diary.

As is manifest, he was not satisfied with the

investigation conducted by the State police and his prayer

was for better and more rigorous investigation. Be it noted,

the High Court by an earlier order had directed the C.B.I. to
investigate as there were certain allegations against the
State police.
4.

While dealing with the interlocutory application filed

by Murukeshan, the brother of Sampath, the High Court

has opined thus:
The re-constitution of the investigation team by
inducting one Haridath as the Chief Investigating
Officer, naturally engendered a fear in the mind
of the petitioner that some attempt was afoot to
deflect the course of investigation. It is that fear
which has necessitated this application.
From the aforesaid, it is clear as crystal that Haridath
was the Chief Investigating Officer. After the investigating
team was constituted by the higher officer, the High Court,
as the order would further unveil, had given immense
protection to Haridath as far as investigation is concerned.
We may profitably reproduce the said paragraph hereunder:
The induction of Haridath at the helm of affairs
in the investigation of Sampath Murder Case
need not cause any concern either to the
petitioner or to anybody else.
Haridath is
believed to be an officer of proven integrity and of
bold disposition. He shall, however, submit a
report every three weeks, under intimation to this
Court, to the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Ernakulam, regarding the progress of the

investigation. The Chief Judicial Magistrate shall
also monitor the investigation and if need be call
for the case diary for his perusal. The present
team of investigation shall not be dislocated or
changed without the orders of this Court. Should
any member of the investigating team feel that
there is any interference with his freedom either
from the C.B.I. or from elsewhere, such member
shall be free to address this Court through the
Registrar General in a sealed cover.
5.

The aforesaid paragraph makes it quite vivid that the

High Court had really reposed faith in Haridath and also

granted him freedom to investigate and liberty to address
the court through the Registrar General in a sealed cover.
The said order was passed on 22nd December, 2010.
6.

The said Haridath was assisted by a team of officers

which included the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

While the

investigation was in progress, Haridath committed suicide

on 15th March, 2012, leaving behind a suicide note.
said note reads as follows:
Rajan and Unnikrishnan (CBI TVPM) are
responsible for my this situation. Nobody else
has any role in this. They who compelled me to
do everything and cheated me and put me in
deep trouble. Advocate Seekumar also has some
role. CJM Sri Vijayan also put pressure on me.
Nobody else has any role in this.

The

On the basis of the aforesaid suicide note, the criminal

law was set in motion and the respondents were arrayed as
accused. The said situation compelled them to invoke the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, and eventually, as has been
stated earlier, the High Court quashed the same.
7.

It is submitted by Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel that

the High Court has fallen into gross error by quashing the
criminal proceeding inasmuch as it is a fit case where there
should have been a trial.

He has taken us through the

statement of the wife of the deceased and the other

witnesses. Learned senior counsel has also commended us
to the authority in Praveen Pradhan vs. State of
Uttaranchal and Another1, to show that the instant case
is one where ingredients of Section 107 of I.P.C. have been
met with.
8.

Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I.,

has also supported the submissions of Mr. Rao.

9.

Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent Nos.1 and 2, per contra, would contend that

(2012) 9 SCC 734

the High Court has justifiably quashed the investigation, for

Haridath, the deceased, was holding a superior rank and
there is nothing to suggest that the respondents had
instigated him or done any activity that had left the
deceased with no option but to commit suicide.

He has

placed reliance upon Netai Dutta vs. State of West

Bengal2 and M. Mohan vs. State, Represented by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police3.
10.

To appreciate the rivalised submissions in the

obtaining factual matrix, it is necessary to understand the

concept of abatement as enshrined in Section 107 IPC. The
said provision reads as follows:107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who
First Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing
of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes
place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that thing; or
Thirdly Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1. A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
2
3

(2005) 2 SCC 659

(2011) 3 SCC 626

voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to

cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said
to aid the doing of that act.
11.

The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal

v. State of M.P4 by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion

therein is to the following effect:Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The
offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing
of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do
that thing; or (2) engages with one or more other
persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing. These things
are essential to complete abetment as a crime.
The word instigate literally means to provoke,
incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do
any thing. The abetment may be by instigation,
conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the
three clauses of Section 107. Section 109
provides that if the act abetted is committed in
consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then
the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Abetted
in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted.
Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a
person is charged with the abetment is normally
linked with the proved offence.

(2007) 10 SCC 797

12.

In Analendu Pal Alis Jhantu v. State of West

Bengal5 dealing with expression of abetment the Court observed:The expression abetment has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any
person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly
or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or
Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC
provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then
the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned
counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly
stated before us that it would be a case where
clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be
attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of
suicide is made out as provided for under Section
107 IPC.
13.

As we find from the narration of facts and the material

brought on record in the case at hand, it is the suicide note

which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and for proper
appreciation

of

the

same,

we

have

reproduced

it

herein-before. On a plain reading of the same, it is difficult

to hold that there has been any abetment by the
respondents. The note, except saying that the respondents
compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put

(2010) 1 SCC 707

him

in

deep

trouble,

contains

nothing

else.

The

respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that

such a thing could happen.

That apart, the allegation is

really vague. It also baffles reason, for the department had

made him the head of the investigating team and the High
Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him
the liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was
no warrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the
officers belonging to the lower rank. That apart, he has also
put the blame on the Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating
that he had put pressure on him. He has also made the
allegation against the Advocate.
14.

In Netai Dutta (supra), a two-Judge Bench, while

dealing with the concept of abetment under Section 107

I.P.C. and, especially, in the context of suicide note, had to
say this:
In the suicide note, except referring to the name
of the appellant at two places, there is no
reference of any act or incidence whereby the
appellant herein is alleged to have committed any
wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or
instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in
committing the act of suicide. There is no case
that the appellant has played any part or any role
in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or

10

resulted in the commission

deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.

of

suicide

by

Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation

made by the complainant that the appellant
herein in any way was harassing his brother,
Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against
the appellant is without any factual foundation.
The contents of the alleged suicide note do not in
any way make out the offence against the
appellant. The prosecution initiated against the
appellant would only result in sheer harassment
to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our
opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred
in holding that the First Information Report
against the appellant disclosed the elements of a
cognizable offence. There was absolutely no
ground to proceed against the appellant herein.
We find that this is a fit case where the
extraordinary power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against
the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal.
15.

In

M.

Mohan

(supra),

while

dealing

with

abatement, the Court has observed thus:

Abetment involves a mental process of
instigating a person or intentionally aiding a
person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act
on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in
committing suicide, conviction cannot be
sustained.
The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of
the cases decided by this court are clear that in
order to convict a person under section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing

the

11

no option and this act must have been intended

to push the deceased into such a position that
he/she committed suicide.
16.

As far as Praveen Pradhan (supra), is concerned, Mr.

Rao, has emphatically relied on it for the purpose that the

Court had declined to quash the F.I.R. as there was a
suicide note. Mr. Rao has drawn out attention to paragraph
10 of the judgment, wherein the suicide note has been
reproduced.

The Court in the said case has referred to

certain authorities with regard to Section 107 I.P.C. and

opined as under:
In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent
that instigation has to be gathered from the
circumstances of a particular case. No
straight-jacket formula can be laid down to find
out as to whether in a particular case there has
been instigation which force the person to
commit suicide. In a particular case, there may
not be direct evidence in regard to instigation
which may have direct nexus to suicide.
Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be
drawn from the circumstances and it is to be
determined whether circumstances had been
such which in fact had created the situation that
a person felt totally frustrated and committed
suicide. More so, while dealing with an
application for quashing of the proceedings, a
court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a
tentative view that would evoke the presumption
referred to under Section 228 Cr.P.C.

12

Thus, the case is required to be considered in the

light of aforesaid settled legal propositions.
In the instant case, alleged harassment had not
been a casual feature, rather remained a matter
of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a
driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with
a married woman, knowing that she also had
another paramour; and therefore, cannot be
compared to the situation of the deceased in the
instant case, who was a qualified graduate
engineer and still suffered persistent harassment
and humiliation and additionally, also had to
endure continuous illegal demands made by the
appellant, upon non-fulfillment of which, he
would be mercilessly harassed by the appellant
for a prolonged period of time. He had also been
forced to work continuously for a long durations
in the factory, vis--vis other employees which
often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch.
Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of
words to the effect, that, had there been any
other person in his place, he would have certainly
committed suicide is what makes the present
case distinct from the aforementioned cases
considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we do not think it is a case which
requires any interference by this court as regards
the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court.
17.

We have quoted in extenso from the said judgment and

we have no hesitation in stating that the suicide note

therein was quite different, and the Court did think it
appropriate to quash the proceedings because of the tenor
and nature of the suicide note. Thus, the said decision is

13

distinguishable regard being had to the factual score

exposited therein.
18.

Coming to the case at hand, as we have stated earlier,

the suicide note really does not state about any continuous
conduct of harassment and, in any case, the facts and
circumstances are quite different. In such a situation, we
are disposed to think that the High Court is justified in
quashing the proceeding, for it is an accepted position in
law that where no prima facie case is made out against the
accused, then the High Court is obliged in law to exercise
the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code and quash
the

proceedings.

[See

V.P.

Shrivastava

v.

Indian

Explosives Limited and Others6]

19.

Before parting with the case, we are impelled to say

something. Mr. Bhushan, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent No. 1 & 2 has drawn our attention to a facet of
earlier judgment of the High Court wherein it has been
mentioned that at one time the deceased was pressurised by
some superior officers. We have independently considered
the material brought on record and arrived at our

(2010) 10 SCC 361

14

conclusion. But, regard being had to the suicide note and

other concomitant facts that have been unfurled, we are
compelled to recapitulate the saying that suicide reflects a
species of fear. It is a sense of defeat that corrodes the
inner soul and destroys the will power and forces one to
abandon

ones

own

responsibility.

To

think

of

self-annihilation because of something which is disagreeable

or intolerable or unbearable, especially in a situation where
one is required to perform public duty, has to be regarded
as a non-valiant attitude that is scared of the immediate
calamity or self-perceived consequence. We may hasten to
add that our submission has nothing to do when a case
under Section 306 IPC is registered in aid of Section 113A of
the Evidence Act, 1872.
20.

In the result, we do not perceive any merit in the

appeal and the same stands dismissed accordingly.

..........................J.
[Dipak Misra]
...........................J.
[Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi,
August 13, 2015.